jpahmad

JakeN, I'm very sorry to hear about your greatly unfortunate personal circumstances. I don't know if I would be able to keep afloat if I were handed your life situation. However, there is a way out. It is difficult to to conceive of, but it is there. It is a matter of managing your emotions so they don't get the best of you (which is going to be a real challenge). Focus on the tasks you have set for yourself for the immediate future. For example, say to yourself "what am I going to do today or tonight to work towards where I want to be." Put "horse blinders" on and make those tasks your whole world. Don't think ahead that far into the future. The supermarket seems to be a great place for you. Think about the supermarket. Focus on it. Someday you will be there with a future spouse or child and you will talk about the comfort that that place gave you. Time is on your side.

Thanks for the story. I'm going to share this with my wife.

For those of you who saw the documentary by Ken Burns, check out this e-mail that someone I know shared on facebook: I knew nothing about the Central Park Jogger case when I watched the Burns documentary. After watching it, I felt for the 5 men who were incarcerated and felt that they were wrongly convicted. That's the power of that film. I'm a detective so I'm familiar with the criminal justice system. I like to think that I'm not easily fooled. The more I learned about this case something didn't add up. Mayor DeBlasio decided to pay these men $41M dollars even though his predecessor, Mayor Bloomberg would not. I just came across this email regarding this case: Here is an email I sent to Mike Lupica of the Daily News regarding his Oct 12, 2014 column about Bill DeBlasio allowing Al Sharpton and Rachael Noerdlinger to run NYC... He NEVER answered... Dear Mr. Lupica, My name is Frank Reynolds, I am a black, retired NYC Detective. On April 19, 1989 I was assigned to the anti-crime unit (plainclothes) of the Central Park Pct with my partner XXXXXXX who is white. That night we apprehended the first five defendants in the Central Park Jogger case, Lamont McCall, Clarence Thomas, Kevin Richardson, Steven Lopez and Raymond Santana. The reason I am writing to you is the issue of Rachael Noerdlinger, Al Sharpton and the pair's relationship with Mayor Bill DeBlasio and how they got the mayor to pay these 5 without the benefit of a jury trial or open public review. This goes right to the question of who is running the city and why it matters. The mayor as a candidate decided to pay off the 5 defendants in the Central Park Jogger Case. He had no knowledge or access to the official facts of the case at that time because the federal judge in the matter imposed a gag order on ALL PARTIES involved. That meant myself, the other detectives, police officers and prosecutors could not talk publicly about the facts of this case. All parties including the "Central Park 5" were bound by this order but elected not to honor it, instead cooperating in Ken Burns "documentary" The Central Park 5. Any time there was a development reported about the case I was sure to get a call from The New York City Corporation Counsel attorneys asking if I've been contacted by reporters and to remind me I am precluded from speaking by federal court order. The attorneys did not want the city's position in litigating this case to be jeopardized by ignoring the judges order. This went on for several years as I repeatedly had to spend time at the Corp Counsel's lower Manhattan offices for trial preparation. Despite being the arresting officer of the original five and spending the next 8 hours processing their arrests after a huge foot chase on Central Park West (I arrested the first five defendants for beating John Laughlin over the head with a pipe shutting both of his eyes, and the assault for several others) I was not named as a defendant in their lawsuit. Why not do you ask...? That's because I'm black and the CP5 allege that it was a "white conspiracy" to deprive them of their rights in a rush to judgment. Despite their claims of "false promises" made to them and their families and "sleep deprivation" both of which they attribute to me, I'm not named as a defendant because I'm black and their story starts to fall apart when closely reviewed. What does this have to do with Rachel Noerdlinger who is Chirlane DeBlasio's "Chief of Staff"? She is the former National Action Network spokesperson. She worked directly for Al Sharpton, who has never met a hoax he didn't like. The CP5 are being "handled" by Al Sharpton, and Al Sharpton has been a vocal proponent of the 5. Here are some issues about the case DeBlasio either ignored or is ignorant of; 1) The "Central Park 5" were NEVER EXONERATED BY ANY COURT. The courts decided to set aside the previous convictions because evidence has surfaced (Matias Reyes confession) that had been heard by the jury at the time of their trial MAY have come back with a different verdict. Robert Morgenthau realized besides political considerations the defendants had all served their sentences so the time and cost of fighting it would be a waste 2) There WAS physical evidence against the "CP5" at the time, and it was presented at trial, despite the myth created by Ken Burns there was no evidence other than their confessions. Here's some of the physical evidence: a)Hairs found on Kevin Richardson, Steven Lopez. b) Blood on Raymond Santana's sneakers, blood on Yusef Salaam's jacket and blood on Lopez's underwear. c) Semen stains on McCray and Richardson's underwear and semen stains on Raymond Santana's sweatshirt 3) There is medical evidence and doctors expert medical testimony that more than one person attacked the jogger that were ignored in it's entirety in the Ken Burns "documentary" (Wall Street Journal article- a) Dr. Robert Kurtz the then Director of Metropolitan Hospital's Surgical Intensive Care Unit and Dr. Jane Haher former Chief of Plastic Surgery at Metropolitan Hospital both treated the Jogger and both state there is clear medical evidence that shows the victim was attacked by more than one assailant. 4) There were witnesses against the defendants that included acquaintances and family friends including; a) Kharey Wise family friend Melody Jackson to whom Wise spoke to via telephone from Riker's Island after his arrest in this case. In their conversation Wise stated to Melody Jackson that he did not rape the jogger, he just merely, "held her legs down, while Kevin (Richardson) f u c k e d her." Because this woman, Ms. Jackson believed the act of merely holding down a victims legs while they were being raped is not a crime she volunteered this information to the detectives who questioned her brother regarding his relationship with the defendant Kharey Wise. She testified in open court that this is what Wise told her on the phone and in 2001 when asked again she confirmed that is what she heard. She has been the subject of threats as a result of her actions. I could go on but my point is this; Noerdlinger's relationship with a cop-hating, drug dealing, homicidal thug is disturbing on many levels. That she allows him to get high while driving her car with her and her teenage son in it, shows more than a lack of judgment, it shows someone that has mistaken dysfunction for culture. She somehow see's being black and being a criminal as normal and not that person's fault. Like Bill DeBlasio she has romanticized black offenders as "political prisoners" born to go straight from the womb to the criminal justice system. The truth of the matter is she omitted her boyfriends past transgressions in Board of Conflicts reports because when you love a thug or a lowlife you have to lie. You have to put up with and defend petty nonsense they created, because to them it's NEVER their fault. They can't help that the cops are always harassing people for smoking weed and driving the wrong way on a public highway with a teen in the backseat, or because he had to kill someone over a jacket. And just like with her thug, ex-con boyfriend despite the mountain of physical and eyewitness evidence against the CP5 Rachael Noerdlinger still supports them still helped them steal $41 million from the city. Do you want a story...? How about a little digging in this case to find that this was the result of collusion between Kharey Wise and Matias Reyes who fought each other on Riker's Island, less than one year after Wise's arrest in this case. Documented by correction officials at the time as a fight over the rec room television, it's clear the two men knew each other from the CPJ attack and Wise was furious over Reyes going unapprehended. You'll also find the ADA Nancy Ryan that re-investigated this case had personal animosity towards the original prosecutors in the case didn't try to fully examine all the facts in this case. I was personally "interviewed" by Ryan late in the investigation and it was very clear she did not want to hear what I had to say. Instead she just tried to dismiss what I saw and heard as irrelevant and I walked out of the interview.I honestly believe Al Sharpton threw his "support" to DeBlasio promising him "the black vote" during the mayoral race in exchange for the hefty $41 million Jogger payout and the $170k Noerdlinger job as Chirlane DeBlasio's COS. We may never know that because the news media isn't courageous enough to NOT accept what they have been spoon fed by the likes of Al Sharpton and Ken Burns. And why else do I KNOW they are guilty...? Because I was THERE for the arrests, interviews and processing. I was THERE when we went to Antron McCray's house where he, his mother and his father volunteered to come to the station house with the clothes McCray wore the night before that was still covered in mud from the rape of the jogger. I was THERE when Kevin Richardson, Clarence Thomas, and Lamont McCall were apprehended and they stated, "I know who did the murder, I know where he lives and I'll tell you his name. It's Antron McCray..."I was THERE trying all night and into the early morning trying to get Raymond Santana Sr. to come down to the Central Park Pct juvenile room to claim his son, before we were aware of the attack on the female jogger.I was THERE for the rowdy scene at the 24pct where the CP5 were singing rap songs and making inappropriate sexual comments to female detectives. Al Sharpton and Ken Burns would have you believe the CP5 were victims of a vast "white conspiracy" to deprive them of their civil rights. As a black man who grew up in a Bronx housing project, is a liberal and vocal about racial issues I can say for an absolute fact there is not one iota of truth to the claim anyone investigating this case, police and/or prosecutors that did anything other than pursue this investigation on its own merits. The idea that "pressure" from the media caused us to decide to "frame" these kids is laughable at best. At the time the defendants had confessed to their attack on the jogger it has to be remembered the jogger herself was still in a coma. NO ONE at that time had any idea what she would remember when she would finally come to. So how much sense would it make to falsely accuse this large group of teenagers when the victim could very well tell us when she came to that it wasn't them. http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/cpjgr/nypd12703jgrrpt.pdf news.findlaw.com %PDF-1.4 % 1700 0 obj > endobj xref 1700 39 0000000016 00000 n 0000001782 00000 n 0000002111 00000 n 0000002262 00000 n 0000003078 00000 n 0000003107 00000 n 0000003324 00000 n 0000003653 00000 n 0000003932 00000 n 0000004163 00000 n 0000058485 00000 n 0000058629 00000 n 0000059100 00000 n 000005940… fl1.findlaw.com

Wow Joel. Doing this is becoming as smooth as getting out of bed in the morning. Good work

I don't think this is a step in any direction. It's all just smoke and mirrors. Nothing will be accomplished by this. Nothing has ever been accomplished by "merit pay" in a coercive institution. It's really is a joke. The only thing that will happen, will be teachers cramming more useless rote-memorizing into their students heads so they will get better marks on tests. You can kiss critical thinking goodbye (if there ever was any in the first place).

You've come to the right place snark. There is no shortage of truth seeking and emotional support here. I think you'll find the FDR forums to be a great addition to your life. jp

Hey Corbyco. If it's so important to you, then why don't you pay us all to do an experiment? Surely a little bit of an expense on your part won't trump the possibility of bringing everyone here to the good lord.

UPB does not concern someone's thought process (moral nihilism). It only concerns behavior, thus the name Universally Preferable Behavior. Here is a very easy way to look at UPB: Universally preferable behavior describes preferred behavior that can be universalized without contradiction. Yes, there are lots of preferred behaviors, but only some behaviors (in terms of ethics) can be universalized without logical contradiction. Don't rape people = preferable behavior that can be universalized (think two guys in a room). Rape people = preferable behavior (by some characters in society) that can't be universalized. Only that "preferable behavior", which can be universalized without contradiction, is valid as a moral principle. This is because moral principles, by definition, must be universal.

In a free society, you can't forcefully abolish anything. Anarcho socialist is a contradiction right?

Just curious, for those who are participating in this thread, I'd like to run a quick survey. The question for the survey is this: If you are one to feel badly about testing and aborting a fetus that has tested positive for Down's Syndrome, do you feel bad because... (A) you empathize with the fetus? or (B) you feel bad for violating a principle? I guess you can answer by just typing "A" or "B" or both.

Would motivational speakers be absolute? I really don't think so. People will still have fears and challenges. You wouldn't be alive if you were not experiencing these emotions. Therefore, it would follow that good therapists would be needed as well.

Hey Antony, I'd like to hear about some of the techniques you use to encourage/motivate your piano students to accomplish things if they become resistant to the effort.

For "fucktard" I wouldn't be so angry. But for "ball-less piece of dung", I would be infuriated! That being said, if someone said that once, or in passing, I wouldn't react to it other than experiencing a passing annoyance. But if they continuously harassed me with it, trying to draw a violent reaction from me, trying to bring me down, I would feel totally justified in lashing out physically if the sentiment overtook me. I wouldn't want to kill them obviously. I would just want them to feel the consequence of their actions. I want them to feel something unpleasant, undesirable. This natural consequence would put an immediate end to my problem. Let my peers judge me as they judge me.

Who decides whether or not we are justified?

Apparently we celebrate lunatic killers now.

Thanks guys!

I just watched Charles Barkley's comments that Stefan posted and I began to become enraged. I am so angry. I feel like pulling all my hair out and running around naked until someone arrests me. So, I know it is not in my rational self-interest to to that. That's why I decided to do the next best thing. Post the video on my facebook page and landblast Charles Barkley and pretty much all of America in front of the aggregate of all my friends and family I have ever had in my life (including kindergarten). So, would someone please be so kind to friend me on facebook and comment on my most recent post. The more the merrier. I don't think anyone else in my facebook network has the balls to even give me so much as a "like." If I don't see any commentary or at least recognition of my post, then I'm going to pull my hair and run around naked until I get tased...maybe. Here is my facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=677407793 Please support me! j.p.

I think it's o.k. to have differing views on what constitutes aggression. It won't disrupt the healthy functioning of society in a free world. This is because most people will be on the same page. I think when you say something that is intended to invoke a physically violent/aggressive response in someone, then you are being the aggressor. Those hate speech people know exactly what they're doing; they're baiting someone. And because they are human themselves, they know what buttons to push in order to illicit an aggressive reaction. This is sadism. There are some emotions, that when pulled and tugged at by an antagonizer, will cause someone to see red and lash out. It could be described as "temporary insanity." I think it's actually quite sane and healthy. You mess with the bull, you get the horns. It's beautiful and proper. Is it a violation of the NAP? Not in my eyes

But Powder, in a free society, there is no "standard." There is no judge that must compare an action to a book of standards. Everyone, every individual, is their own judge. The fallout of, let's say, my decision to punch the anti-gay activist yelling behind me, would simply be the reaction of my peers (which includes private businesses like DROs). If we were friends in a free society, and we were attending my gay friend's funeral, and I did the very act mentioned above (punching the hate-speech guy) how would you judge me? Would you stop being my friend? Would you stop doing business with me? Now the DRO may or may not decide to raise my rates. However, I find it very unlikely that they would consider me a liability for acting in the way I did considering the circumstances. Furthermore, in a free market, there is always another DRO company that would take me on if I was dropped by the other one. It's all circumstantial. It's all individuals making decisions about their relationships. There is no rule of law. No book of standards.

This makes make think of those radical Christians who spew anti-gay hate speech at the funerals. I mean, standing behind someone's back who just lost a loved one and screaming that it was good that they died is just deplorable and deserves the appropriate response, which is whatever that person (the mourner) feels like dishing out. In that situation , the NAP would be violated by the hate speech of the radical Christians. However, in other circumstances, the NAP would not be violated. Why can't these things simply be circumstantial? I really don't see a slippery slope problem.

Well that's at least one positive thing!

I was waiting for it and...yes she actually said it around 2:40 mark I am interested in seeing the director's portrayal of the issue when the film does come out. I get the feeling it's going to be something like "the old men are creepy and lets feel sorry for the girls." Or maybe I'm jumping to conclusions.

What if tests detect that the fetus has a rare genetic disorder and will most likely live a short and painful life?

This shit fills me with such anger. I have no other words.

In my eyes, the only character that was moderately likeable was Seth Rogan's character. I was appalled by the selfish and hedonistic behavior of the other two characters in the movie. However, the director didn't seem to attempt to make them the obvious "villains." I really think the director wanted us to like those people as well, which infuriates me to no end. Thanks for the article referral